Protein depletion by genetic means, in a very general sense including the use of RNA interference [1, 2] or CRISPR/Cas9-based methods, represents a central paradigm of modern biology to study protein functions in vivo. However, acting upstream the proteic level is a limiting factor if the turnover of the target protein is slow or the existing pool of the target protein is important (for instance, in insect embryos, as a consequence of a strong maternal contribution). In order to circumvent these problems, we developed deGradFP [3, 4]. deGradFP harnesses the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway to achieve direct depletion of GFP-tagged proteins. deGradFP is in essence a universal method because it relies on an evolutionarily conserved machinery for protein catabolism in eukaryotic cells; see refs. 5, 6 for review. deGradFP is particularly convenient in Drosophila melanogaster where it is implemented by a genetically encoded effector expressed under the control of the Gal4 system. deGradFP is a ready-to-use solution to perform knockdowns at the protein level if a fly line carrying a functional GFP-tagged version of the gene of interest is available. Many such lines have already been generated by the Drosophila community through different technologies allowing to make genomic rescue constructs or direct GFP knockins: protein-trap stock collections [7, 8] (http://cooley.medicine.yale.edu/flytrap/, http://www.flyprot.org/), P[acman] system , MiMIC lines [10, 11], and CRISPR/Cas9-driven homologous recombination.
Two essential controls of a protein knockdown experiment are easily achieved using deGradFP. First, the removal of the target protein can be assessed by monitoring the disappearance of the GFP tag by fluorescence microscopy in parallel to the documentation of the phenotype of the protein knockdown (seeNote1). Second, the potential nonspecific effects of deGradFP can be assessed in control fly lacking a GFP-tagged target protein. So far, no nonspecific effects of the deGradFP effector have been reported .
GFP Nanobodies F-Box Proteasome Gene expression
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more
The authors thank the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (Indiana University, Bloomington) for providing fly stocks, and Addgene for providing plasmids.
Dietzl G, Doris CD, Schnorrer F et al (2007) A genome-wide transgenic RNAi library for conditional gene inactivation in Drosophila. Nature 448:151–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Morin X, Daneman R, Zavortink M et al (2001) A protein trap strategy to detect GFP-tagged proteins expressed from their endogenous loci in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:15050–15055CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Lowe N, Rees JS, Roote J et al (2014) Analysis of the expression patterns, subcellular localisations and interaction partners of drosophila proteins using a pigp protein trap library. Development 141:3994–4005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Nagarkar-Jaiswal S, Lee PT, Campbell ME et al (2015) A library of Mimics allows tagging of genes and reversible, spatial and temporal knockdown of proteins in Drosophila. Elife. doi:10.7554/eLife.05338Google Scholar
Ciechanover A, Ben-Saadon R (2004) N-terminal ubiquitination: more protein substrates join in. Trends Cell Biol 14:103–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Jiang J, Struhl G (1998) Regulation of the hedgehog and wingless signalling pathways by the F-box/WD40-repeat protein Slimb. Nature 391:493–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Saerens D, Pellis M, Loris R et al (2005) Identification of a universal VHH framework to graft non-canonical antigen-binding loops of camel single-domain antibodies. J Mol Biol 352:597–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rothbauer U, Zolghadr K, Tillib S et al (2006) Targeting and tracing antigens in live cells with fluorescent nanobodies. Nat Methods 3:887–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Tabata T, Eaton S, Kornberg TB (1992) The Drosophila hedgehog gene is expressed specifically in posterior compartment cells and is a target of engrailed regulation. Genes Dev 6:2635–2645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto K, Toh-e A, Oshima Y (1978) Genetic control of galactokinase synthesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: evidence for constitutive expression of the positive regulatory gene gal4. J Bacteriol 134:446–457PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
McGuire SE, Le PT, Osborn AJ et al (2003) Spatiotemporal rescue of memory dysfunction in Drosophila. Science 302:1765–1768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Tilmann B, Dominique F, Stefan L (2014) The transmembrane protein Macroglobulin complement-related is essential for septate junction formation and epithelial barrier function in Drosophila. Development 141:899–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royou A, Field C, Sisson JC et al (2004) Reassessing the role and dynamics of nonmuscle myosin II during furrow formation in early Drosophila embryos. Mol Biol Cell 15:838–850CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Zecca M, Struhl G (2007) Recruitment of cells into the Drosophila wing primordium by a feed-forward circuit of vestigial autoregulation. Development 134:3001–3010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bopp D, Bell LR, Cline TW et al (1991) Developmental distribution of female-specific sex-lethal proteins in Drosophila melanogaster. Genes Dev 5:403–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Urban E, Nagarkar-Jaiswal S, Lehner CF et al (2014) The cohesin subunit Rad21 is required for synaptonemal complex maintenance, but not sister chromatid cohesion, during Drosophila female meiosis. PLOS Genetics 10:e1004540Google Scholar
Rubliaychaudhuri N, Dubruille R, Orsi GA et al (2012) Transgenerational propagation and quantitative maintenance of paternal centromeres depends on Cid/Cenp-A presence in Drosophila sperm. PLoS Biol 10:e1001434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder B, Schomburg A, Pflanz R et al (2008) Tev protease-mediated cleavage in Drosophila as a tool to analyze protein functions in living organisms. Biotechniques 44:765–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar